Report on the justice assistance and victims of crime acts of 1984.

"April 1985."

Report on the Justice Assistance and Victims of Crime Acts of 1984 : priority program recommendations.

"December 1986."

Benefits and challenges of using restorative justice approaches for victims of crime committed by adults: An exploration of theory and evidence

Book Abstract: Current experimentations with approaches to restorative justice for adult offenders represents a compelling new direction in the criminal justice system. This book examines the values and challenges of restorative justice for adult offenders, victims and communities. The discussion is situated within current debate, available research, and the international literature. In canvassing the structure, content, and delivery of key Australian and New Zealand restorative justice programs for adult offenders, the distinguished authors offer critical analysis of the emergence and impact of program developements for practitioners and professionals. This collection brings together stimulating and informed articles by experienced practitioners, leading academics and new researchers in the field. It also offers valuable insights into emerging restorative justice practice for adult offenders and provides a real alternative to the adversarial justice system.

Is there more to restorative justice than mere compliance to procedural justice? : a qualitative reflection from the victims' point of view

Une multitude de recherches évaluatives ont démontré que les victimes de crime, qu’elles soient victimes d’un crime contre les biens ou contre la personne, apprécient l’approche réparatrice. Cependant, nous sommes toujours à la recherche des facteurs théoriques qui expliqueraient la satisfaction des victimes en ce qui concerne leur expérience avec les interventions réparatrices. La recherche décrite dans cette thèse concerne l’exploration des facteurs contribuant à la satisfaction des victimes de crime avec l’approche réparatrice ainsi que ses liens avec la théorie de justice procédurale. Selon la théorie de justice procédurale, la perception de justice n’est pas uniquement associée à l’appréciation du résultat d’une intervention, mais également à l’appréciation de la procédure, et que la procédure et le résultat peuvent être évalués de façon indépendante. Les procédures qui privilégient la confiance, la neutralité et le respect, ainsi que la participation et la voix des parties sont plus appréciées. Notre objectif de recherche était d’explorer l’analogie entre l’appréciation de la justice réparatrice et le concept de justice procédurale. En outre, nous avons voulu déterminer si la justice réparatrice surpasse, en termes de satisfaction, ceux prévus par la théorie de justice procédurale. Nous avons également examiné la différence dans l’appréciation de l’approche réparatrice selon le moment de l’application, soit avant ou après adjudication pénale. Ainsi, nous avons exploré le rôle d’une décision judiciaire dans l’évaluation de l’approche réparatrice. Pour répondre à nos objectifs de recherche, nous avons consulté des victimes de crime violent au sujet de leur expérience avec l’approche réparatrice. Nous avons mené des entrevues semi-directives avec des victimes de crime violent qui ont participé à une médiation auteur-victime, à une concertation réparatrice en groupe ou aux rencontres détenus-victimes au Canada (N=13) et en Belgique (N=21). Dans cet échantillon, 14 répondants ont participé à une intervention réparatrice avant adjudication judiciaire et 14 après adjudication. Nous avons observé que l’approche réparatrice semble être en analogie avec la théorie de justice procédurale. D’ailleurs, l’approche réparatrice dépasse les prémisses de la justice procédurale en étant flexible, en offrant de l’aide, en se concentrant sur le dialogue et en permettant d’aborder des raisons altruistes. Finalement, le moment de l’application, soit avant ou après adjudication, ne semble pas affecter l’appréciation des interventions réparatrices. Néanmoins, le rôle attribué à l’intervention réparatrice ainsi que l’effet sur l’évaluation du système judiciaire diffèrent selon le moment d’application. Les victimes suggèrent de continuer à développer l’approche réparatrice en tant que complément aux procédures judiciaires, plutôt qu’en tant que mesure alternative. Les témoignages des victimes servent la cause de l’offre réparatrice aux victimes de crime violent. L’offre réparatrice pourrait aussi être élargie aux différentes phases du système judiciaire. Cependant, la préférence pour l’approche réparatrice comme complément aux procédures judiciaires implique la nécessité d’investir également dans la capacité du système judiciaire de répondre aux besoins des victimes, tant sur le plan de la procédure que sur le plan du traitement par les autorités judiciaires.

Punishment goals of crime victims

Research on subjective punishment goals has focused on the perspective of third-party observers of criminal offenses and neglected the perspective of victims. This study investigates punishment goals among 174 adult crime victims (rape and nonsexual assault) for each participant’s real criminal case. Scales measuring support for punishment goals are constructed by factor analysis of an 18-item list. Results show that 5 highly supported goals can be distinguished: retaliation, recognition of victim status, confirmation of societal values, victim security, and societal security. Analysis of relations between punishment goal scales and personal variables, situational variables, and demanded punishment severity corroborates the view that the punishment goals revealed can be classified according to the two independent dichotomies of moral versus instrumental goals, and micro versus macro goals.

Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings

It is conceivable that criminal proceedings cause psychological harm to the crime victims involved, that is, cause secondary victimization. To investigate this hypothesis, negative and positive effects of criminal proceedings were investigated, as perceived by 137 victims of violent crimes who were involved in trials several years previously. Trial outcome and procedure variables were measured as potential causes of secondary victimization. Results show a high proportion of victims reporting overall negative effects. Powerful predictors were outcome satisfaction and procedural justice, but not subjective punishment severity, interactional justice, and psychological stress by criminal proceedings. The practical implications of the results pertain to whether victims should be advised to report the crime to the police or not, and to appropriate prevention and intervention measures of secondary victimization by criminal proceedings.

Is the anti-trafficking framework really for the 'victims'? : reflections on Burmese victims of human trafficking and non-trafficked migrants in Thailand

Since the year 2000 when the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, human trafficking has been regarded as one of the egregious violations of human rights, and global efforts have been made to eradicate it. The anti-trafficking framework has multiple dimensions, and the way the anti-trafficking framework is constructed influences its impact on the victims and non-trafficked migrants. This paper will analyze the impact of the anti-trafficking framework on the experiences of Burmese victims and non-trafficked migrants in Thailand. I will question the conventional framework of anti-trafficking, and seek to construct a framework more appropriate for addressing victims' actual needs. In conclusion, the anti-trafficking framework should serve the best interest of the victim; still, it should not be one which might adversely affect the interest of the would-be victim who is not identified as a victim according to the law.

Victimization, fear of crime and altered behavior : a profile of the crime problem in Murphy Homes, Baltimore, Maryland.

Previous edition current.

Modernity and the 'failure' of crime control

Rather than understanding the recurrent failure of various attempts at crime control as unfortunate and undesirable aberrations, all too familiar glitches an otherwise uninterrupted teleological march to a better society, such failures are instead positioned as part of the fabric of late modernity itself. That is, society changes not according to a predetermined logic along neatly defined and clearly reasoned tracks, rather it hurtles from crisis to crisis, from failure to failure, and it is the regulation of that failure which produces new initiatives and new forms of governance. Utilising the example of the modern prison, this chapter contends that too great an emphasis upon this institution’s ‘failure’ results not only in a neglect of the many other functions that it serves in the regulation of difference, but also, and more generally, it results in an underestimation of the importance of failure in providing new impetus for social transformation.

‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’ : attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents

Driver aggression is an increasing concern for motorists, with some research suggesting that drivers who behave aggressively perceive their actions as justified by the poor driving of others. Thus attributions may play an important role in understanding driver aggression. A convenience sample of 193 drivers (aged 17-36) randomly assigned to two separate roles (‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’) responded to eight scenarios of driver aggression. Drivers also completed the Aggression Questionnaire and Driving Anger Scale. Consistent with the actor-observer bias, ‘victims’ (or recipients) in this study were significantly more likely than ‘perpetrators’ (or instigators) to endorse inadequacies in the instigator’s driving skills as the cause of driver aggression. Instigators were significantly more likely attribute the depicted behaviours to external but temporary causes (lapses in judgement or errors) rather than stable causes. This suggests that instigators recognised drivers as responsible for driving aggressively but downplayed this somewhat in comparison to ‘victims’/recipients. Recipients and instigators agreed that the behaviours were examples of aggressive driving but instigators appeared to focus on the degree of intentionality of the driver in making their assessments while recipients appeared to focus on the safety implications. Contrary to expectations, instigators gave mean ratings of the emotional impact of driving aggression on recipients that were higher in all cases than the mean ratings given by the recipients. Drivers appear to perceive aggressive behaviours as modifiable, with the implication that interventions could appeal to drivers’ sense of self-efficacy to suggest strategies for overcoming plausible and modifiable attributions (e.g. lapses in judgement; errors) underpinning behaviours perceived as aggressive.